I don't believe that. Can you find this survey you were talking about?

Basic web search for “australia survey closest international friend” returned https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/australias-best-friend...

Right, so the US had a high of 35% and then dropped and has never been higher than that.

I just wanted to check the OPs survey because it could have been something different i.e.: that supports the claim

Isn't that what pewdiepie made?

https://odysseusai.dev/

No, if you look carefully these are very different things targeting very different use cases (enterprise-wide agents vs personal agent).

Hey all,

I want to write a book about software engineering, but I want to make it applicable for people. So I've put up the above survey so that people can share some of their thoughts and experiences.

Please feel free to fill in the questionnaire or write some comments below if you have some ideas on what you're looking for.

> he insists that the only way to do performance is to write unmaintainable code

This is new to me, where does he say this specifically?

Not to white knight Casey but his niche has been in rendering and graphics afaik , where everything he does have to fit inbetween frames, so it makes sense to be a "performance maximalist" in that environment.

It could be that you and he are working on different sets of problems with different tools.

But I'd be really interested I where he says you must write unmaintainable code.

Also (my take) : if you're looking at "clean code" to find abstractions that allow things to be refactored, then I think that's probably not the type of performance he's talking about for you. LLMs can do that type of work. FWIW I think he refactors from what things ought to be, not how they are currently

Obviously he's not going to call his own code unmaintainable, but he's basically against abstractions which let people write software that needs to survive past a frame. BTW I have found that LLMs are kind of bad at doing refactoring (like, they can mechanically do a refactor, but they cannot actually help you with picking what refactor you'd want to do)

Too noob to get it

This is the Israeli take that is continually pushed to normalize their approach to "removing baby terrorists"

It's a good phrase

Nothing ever happens unless there's a paper to back it up

More like: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That wild claim needs some backing, lest we all be justified in making fun of it.

The extraordinary claim at issue is YOURS:

> News just in: talking about your mental health, especially for men, does not improve your mental health.

> For the majority of men, most of the time.

One thing talking to a therapist has a proven ability to do is fatten their purse at your expense.

There are no measurable benefits better than placebo.

Still no evidence or other support for these claims = bad faith.

Perhaps it's... "simple to implement."

Usually it can be that the complex artifact is the simplest to implement. It's harder to make the simple thing

Classic, Rich Hicky, "simple made, easy" talk reference.

This was a great and resonant post. Don't worry about the green names.

I think there is almost a split between people who have read ZAOMM and people who have not.

I recently made a post in my circles about how "meaning" is what human quality is. If you look at classical art a lot of it could look objectively nonsense and have technical mistakes, but just because the machine can make a picture does not mean that it attributes any meaning or communicate any intention. The difference between human-made classical artwork and machine-made classical artwork is the meaning and symbology behind it